DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Pest Risk Analysis for Gymnandrosoma Aurantianum

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Pest Risk Analysis for Gymnandrosoma Aurantianum EUROPEAN AND MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATION ORGANISATION EUROPEENNE ET MEDITERRANEENNE POUR LA PROTECTION DES PLANTES 20-25860 Pest Risk Analysis for Gymnandrosoma aurantianum (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), citrus fruit borer, macadamia fruit borer H. Blanco-Metzler. Adults of G. aurantianum, Costa Rica. September 2020 EPPO 21 Boulevard Richard Lenoir, 75011 Paris www.eppo.int [email protected] The risk assessment follows EPPO standard PM 5/5(1) Decision-Support Scheme for an Express Pest Risk Analysis (available at http://archives.eppo.int/EPPOStandards/pra.htm), as recommended by the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures. Pest risk management (detailed in Annex 1) was conducted according to the EPPO Decision-support scheme for quarantine pests PM 5/3(5). The risk assessment uses the terminology defined in ISPM 5 Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (available at https://www.ippc.int/index.php). Cite this document as: EPPO (2020) Pest Risk Analysis for Gymnandrosoma aurantianum (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), citrus fruit borer, macadamia fruit borer. EPPO, Paris. Available at https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/ECDYAU/documents 1 Based on this PRA, Gymnandrosoma aurantianum was added to the EPPO A1 List of pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests in 2020. Measures for Citrus fruits are recommended. Pest Risk Analysis for Gymnandrosoma aurantianum (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) PRA area: EPPO region Prepared by: Expert Working Group (EWG) on Gymnandrosoma aurantianum Date: 18-21 November 2019. Further reviewed and amended by EPPO core members and Panel on Phytosanitary Measures (see below). Composition of the Expert Working Group (EWG) BLANCO METZLER Helga Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica (Ms) FERNÁNDEZ GALLEGO Tecnologías y Servicios Agrarios, S. A. - Tragsatec, Madrid, Spain Maria Del Mar (Ms) MONTECCHIO Lucio (Mr) Università di Padova, Dipartimento Territorio e Sistemi Agrofrestali, Padova, Italy ÜSTÜN Nursen (Ms) Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Bornova Plant Protection Research Institute, Bornova/Izmir, Turkey EPPO GROUSSET Fabienne (Ms) Consultant for EPPO TANNER Rob (Mr) EPPO Secretariat OEPP/EPPO, 21 boulevard Richard Lenoir, 75011 Paris, France [email protected] All personal communications in this PRA were obtained in November 2019-January 2020 from the following experts: H. Blanco-Metzler (Universidad de Costa Rica, Costa Rica), R. Parra (University of São Paulo, Brazil), L. Torta (University of Palermo, Italy), N. Üstün (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Turkey). The first draft of the PRA was prepared by the EPPO Secretariat. Ratings of likelihoods and levels of uncertainties were made during the meeting. These ratings are based on evidence provided in the PRA and on discussions in the group. Each EWG member provided a rating and a level of uncertainty anonymously and proposals were then discussed together in order to reach a final decision. Following the EWG, the PRA was further reviewed by the following core members: N. Avendaño Garcia, J.M. Guitian Castrillon, A. Sağlam, E. Guachet, F. Petter, M. Suffert, D.J. Van Der Gaag. The PRA, in particular the section on risk management, was reviewed and amended by the EPPO Panel on Phytosanitary Measures on 2019-10-22/24 and 2020-03-24/26. The EPPO Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations and Council agreed that Gymnandrosoma aurantianum should be added to the A1 List of pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests in 2020. 2 CONTENTS Stage 1. Initiation ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Stage 2. Pest risk assessment ......................................................................................................................... 6 1. Taxonomy ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Pest overview................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Morphology ............................................................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Life cycle ................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.3 Effect of abiotic factors ........................................................................................................................ 11 2.4 Effect of biotic factors .......................................................................................................................... 13 2.5 Effect of market prices ......................................................................................................................... 14 2.6 Dispersal capacity of adults .................................................................................................................. 14 2.7 Nature of the damage ........................................................................................................................... 14 2.8 Detection and identification ................................................................................................................. 15 3. Is the pest a vector? ..................................................................................................................................... 16 4. Is a vector needed for pest entry or spread? ................................................................................................ 16 5. Regulatory status of the pest ........................................................................................................................ 16 6. Pest distribution ........................................................................................................................................... 16 7. Host plants and their distribution in the PRA area ...................................................................................... 18 8. Pathways for entry ....................................................................................................................................... 21 8.1 Pathways studied .................................................................................................................................. 21 8.2 Pathways with a very low likelihood of entry ...................................................................................... 33 9. Likelihood of establishment outdoors in the PRA area ............................................................................... 33 9.1 Host plants in the EPPO region ............................................................................................................ 33 9.2 Biological considerations ..................................................................................................................... 34 9.3 Climatic suitability ............................................................................................................................... 35 9.4 Conclusion of establishment................................................................................................................. 36 10. Likelihood of establishment in protected conditions in the PRA area ...................................................... 37 11. Spread in the PRA area .............................................................................................................................. 38 12. Impact in the current area of distribution .................................................................................................. 38 12.1 Direct impact on fruit production ....................................................................................................... 38 12.2 Impact on export markets ................................................................................................................... 40 12.3 Environmental impact ........................................................................................................................ 40 12.5 Existing control strategies .................................................................................................................. 41 13. Potential impact in the PRA area ............................................................................................................... 42 14. Identification of the endangered area ........................................................................................................ 43 15. Overall assessment of risk ......................................................................................................................... 43 Stage 3. Pest risk management ................................................................................................................... 44 16. Phytosanitary measures ............................................................................................................................. 44 16.1 Phytosanitary measures to prevent entry ............................................................................................ 44 16.2 Eradication and containment .............................................................................................................. 46 17. Uncertainty ................................................................................................................................................ 47 18. Remarks ....................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jordan Beans RA RMO Dir
    Importation of Fresh Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), Shelled or in Pods, from Jordan into the Continental United States A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment February 14, 2011 Version 2 Agency Contact: Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 Pest Risk Assessment for Beans from Jordan Executive Summary In this risk assessment we examined the risks associated with the importation of fresh beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), in pods (French, green, snap, and string beans) or shelled, from the Kingdom of Jordan into the continental United States. We developed a list of pests associated with beans (in any country) that occur in Jordan on any host based on scientific literature, previous commodity risk assessments, records of intercepted pests at ports-of-entry, and information from experts on bean production. This is a qualitative risk assessment, as we express estimates of risk in descriptive terms (High, Medium, and Low) rather than numerically in probabilities or frequencies. We identified seven quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway of introduction. We estimated Consequences of Introduction by assessing five elements that reflect the biology and ecology of the pests: climate-host interaction, host range, dispersal potential, economic impact, and environmental impact. We estimated Likelihood of Introduction values by considering both the quantity of the commodity imported annually and the potential for pest introduction and establishment. We summed the Consequences of Introduction and Likelihood of Introduction values to estimate overall Pest Risk Potentials, which describe risk in the absence of mitigation.
    [Show full text]
  • 70 COMUNICAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA Carmenta Foraseminis
    Revista de Agricultura v.88, n.1, p. 70 – 75, 2013 COMUNICAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA Carmenta foraseminis (LEPIDOPTERA: SESIIDAE), NOVA BROCA DE FRUTOS DE CACAU NO BRASIL Vera Lúcia Rodrigues Machado Benassi1, Carlos Alberto Spaggiari Souza2, Fabrício Iglesias Valente3, Jéssica Cristina Lenzi4 1Instituto Capixaba de Pesquisa, Assistência Técnica e Extensão Rural, Rod. BR 101, Km 151, Caixa Postal 62, 29915-140, Linhares, ES, [email protected] 2Estação Experimental Filogônio Peixoto - CEPLAC, Linhares, ES 3Pós-graduando - FCAV/UNESP Jaboticabal, SP 4Bolsista de Iniciação Científica- CNPq - Faculdade Pitágoras de Linhares-ES RESUMO Uma nova praga atacando frutos de cacau (Theobroma cacao) no município de Linhares- ES é relatada e ilustrada. Os exemplares foram obtidos a partir de frutos broqueados colhidos em cacaueiros da Estação Experimental Filogônio Peixoto da CEPLAC, durante o período de novembro/2011 a Fevereiro/2012. O inseto foi identificado como Carmenta foraseminis, uma mariposa pertencente à família Sesiidae. Este é o primeiro registro desta espécie ocorrendo em frutos de cacau no Brasil. Palavras-chave: levantamento, praga, sementes, broca do fruto, cacau Carmenta foraseminis (LEPIDOPTERA: SESIIDAE), NEW BORER OF COCOA FRUITS IN BRASIL ABSTRACT A new pest attacking fruits of cocoa (Theobroma cacao) in the municipality of Linhares – ES, Brazil is related and illustrated. The specimens were obtained from bored fruits collected at the Estação Experimental Filogônio Peixoto- CEPLAC during the period of November/2011 to February/2012. The insect was identified as Carmenta foraseminis, a moth belonging to the Sesiidae family. This is the first record of this species occurring in cocoa fruits in Brazil. Key words: survey, pest, seeds, fruit borer, cocoa O cacaueiro (Theobroma cacao L.) é Dias, 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Surto De Lepidobrocas Atacando Frutos De Cacaueiro Boletim Técnico N° 210 Boletim Técnico N° 210 Boletim Técnico N° 210 Boletim Técnico N° 210 Boletim Técnico N° 210
    MINISTÉRIO DA AGRICULTURA, PECUÁRIA E ABASTECIMENTO Comissão Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Cacaueira Centro de Pesquisas do Cacau SURTO DE LEPIDOBROCAS ATACANDO FRUTOS DE CACAUEIRO BOLETIM TÉCNICO N° 210 BOLETIM TÉCNICO N° 210 BOLETIM TÉCNICO N° 210 BOLETIM TÉCNICO N° 210 BOLETIM TÉCNICO N° 210 MINISTÉRIO DA AGRICULTURA, PECUÁRIA E ABASTECIMENTO 2018 © 2018 Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Todos os direitos reservados. Permitida a reprodução parcial ou total desde que citada a fonte e que não seja para venda ou qualquer fim comercial. A responsabilidade pelos direitos autorais de textos e imagens desta obra é do autor. Ano 2018 Tiragem: 1.000 exemplares Elaboração, distribuição, informações: Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento Comissão Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Cacaueira Superintendência Regional no Estado da Bahia Centro de Pesquisas do Cacau Comissão de Editoração: Adonias de Castro Virgens Filho; Antônio Cesar Costa Zugaib; Dan Érico Vieira Petit Lobão; Edna Dora Martins Newman Luz; George Andrade Sodré; Givaldo Rocha Niella; Jacques Hubert Charles Delabie; José Raimundo Bonadie Marques e Jadergudson Pereira; José Basílio Vieira Leite; José Inácio Lacerda Moura; José Luís Bezerra; José Luís Pires; José Marques Pereira; Karina Peres Gramacho; Manfred Willy Muller; Paulo César Lima Marrocos; Raúl René Melendez Valle; Uilson Vanderlei Lopes. Editor: Ronaldo Costa Argôlo. Coeditor: Quintino Reis de Araujo Normalização de referências bibliográficas: Maria Christina de C. Faria Editoração eletrônica: Selenê Cristina Badaró e Jacqueline C. C. do Amaral F 633.745 N 163 NAKAYAMA, K. 2018. Surto de lepidobrocas atacando frutos de cacaueiro. Ilhéus, BA, CEPLAC/CEPEC. Boletim Técnico, nº 210. 26p. 1. Theobroma cacao - Inseto e praga - Lepidoptera : sesiidae - Carmenta faraseminis.
    [Show full text]
  • False Codling Moth Thaumatotibia Leucotreta
    Stone Fruit Commodity-Based Pest Survey False Codling Moth Thaumatotibia leucotreta Introduction False codling moth (Figure 1) is a significant pest because of its potential economic impact on many crops, including stone fruit, avocado, citrus, corn, cotton, and macadamia. It is not currently known to be present in the United States. Biology Depending on conditions, the false codling moth’s life cycle ranges from 30 to 174 days. It can produce from 2 to 10 generations each year, depending on multiple factors including temperature, food availability and quality, and humidity. To attract males, adult females release pheromones at FIGURE 1. Adult false codling moth (Thaumatotibia leucotreta). Photo courtesy of night. After the adults mate, the female deposits eggs on Pest and Diseases Image Library, Bugwood.org. host plants, either in batches or as single eggs. Later, the hatching larvae burrow into the rind of the host plant. Mature larvae spin cocoons and pupate before they emerge as adults. Symptoms False codling moth can attack stone fruit at any stage. Larvae can even develop in hard green fruit prior to application of control measures. Larvae burrow at the stem end into the fruit and cause damage by feeding around the stone. Damaged fruit can become vulnerable to secondary pests such as fungal organisms and scavengers. Peaches can be damaged by larvae beginning up to 6 weeks before harvest. False codling moth can also attack plants unsuitable for larvae development, such as avocado, causing lesions on fruit tissue and diminishing the marketability of fruit. Because false codling moth is an internal feeder, few symptoms are actually displayed by the larvae.
    [Show full text]
  • Moths of Poole Harbour Species List
    Moths of Poole Harbour is a project of Birds of Poole Harbour Moths of Poole Harbour Species List Birds of Poole Harbour & Moths of Poole Harbour recording area The Moths of Poole Harbour Project The ‘Moths of Poole Harbour’ project (MoPH) was established in 2017 to gain knowledge of moth species occurring in Poole Harbour, Dorset, their distribution, abundance and to some extent, their habitat requirements. The study area uses the same boundaries as the Birds of Poole Harbour (BoPH) project. Abigail Gibbs and Chris Thain, previous Wardens on Brownsea Island for Dorset Wildlife Trust (DWT), were invited by BoPH to undertake a study of moths in the Poole Harbour recording area. This is an area of some 175 square kilometres stretching from Corfe Castle in the south to Canford Heath in the north of the conurbation and west as far as Wareham. 4 moth traps were purchased for the project; 3 Mercury Vapour (MV) Robinson traps with 50m extension cables and one Actinic, Ultra-violet (UV) portable Heath trap running from a rechargeable battery. This was the capability that was deployed on most of the ensuing 327 nights of trapping. Locations were selected using a number of criteria: Habitat, accessibility, existing knowledge (previously well-recorded sites were generally not included), potential for repeat visits, site security and potential for public engagement. Field work commenced from late July 2017 and continued until October. Generally, in the years 2018 – 2020 trapping field work began in March/ April and ran on until late October or early November, stopping at the first frost.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny and Evolution of Lepidoptera
    EN62CH15-Mitter ARI 5 November 2016 12:1 I Review in Advance first posted online V E W E on November 16, 2016. (Changes may R S still occur before final publication online and in print.) I E N C N A D V A Phylogeny and Evolution of Lepidoptera Charles Mitter,1,∗ Donald R. Davis,2 and Michael P. Cummings3 1Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742; email: [email protected] 2Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560 3Laboratory of Molecular Evolution, Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742 Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2017. 62:265–83 Keywords Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2017.62. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org The Annual Review of Entomology is online at Hexapoda, insect, systematics, classification, butterfly, moth, molecular ento.annualreviews.org systematics This article’s doi: Access provided by University of Maryland - College Park on 11/20/16. For personal use only. 10.1146/annurev-ento-031616-035125 Abstract Copyright c 2017 by Annual Reviews. Until recently, deep-level phylogeny in Lepidoptera, the largest single ra- All rights reserved diation of plant-feeding insects, was very poorly understood. Over the past ∗ Corresponding author two decades, building on a preceding era of morphological cladistic stud- ies, molecular data have yielded robust initial estimates of relationships both within and among the ∼43 superfamilies, with unsolved problems now yield- ing to much larger data sets from high-throughput sequencing. Here we summarize progress on lepidopteran phylogeny since 1975, emphasizing the superfamily level, and discuss some resulting advances in our understanding of lepidopteran evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Thaumatotibia Leucotreta
    Thaumatotibia leucotreta Scientific Name Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick) Synonyms: Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick), Cryptophlebia roerigii Zacher Olethreutes leucotreta Meyrick Thaumatotibia roerigii Zacher Common Name(s) False codling moth, citrus codling moth, orange moth, and orange codling moth Type of Pest Moth Figure 1. Larva of Thaumatotibia leucotreta (T. Grove Taxonomic Position and W. Styn, bugwood.org). Class: Insecta, Order: Lepidoptera, Family: Tortricidae Reason for Inclusion CAPS Target: AHP Prioritized Pest List - 2003 through 2014 Pest Description Eggs: Eggs are flat, oval (0.77 mm long by 0.60 mm wide) shaped discs with a granulated surface. The eggs are white to cream colored when initially laid. They change to a reddish color before the black head capsule of the larvae becomes visible under the chorion prior to hatching (Daiber, 1979a). 1 Larvae: First instar (neonate) larvae approximately 1 to 1.2 mm (< /16 in) in length with dark pinacula giving a spotted appearance, fifth instar larvae are orangey-pink, 1 becoming more pale on sides and yellow in ventral region, 12 to 18 mm (approx. /2 to 11 /16 in) long, with a brown head capsule and prothoracic shield (Fig. 1). [Note this coloration is only present in live specimens.] The last abdominal segment bears an anal comb with two to ten “teeth.” The mean head capsule width for the first through fifth instar larvae has been recorded as: 0.22, 0.37, 0.61, 0.94 and 1.37 mm, respectively (Daiber, 1979b). Diagnostic characters would include the anal comb with two to ten teeth in addition to: L pinaculum on T1 enlarged and extending beneath and beyond (posterad of) the spiracle; spiracle on A8 displaced posterad of SD pinaculum; crochets unevenly triordinal, 36-42; L-group on A9 usually trisetose (all setae usually on same pinaulum) (Brown, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Parasitism on the Population Dynamics of the Macadamia Nutborer Gymnandrosoma Aurantianum (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)
    The effect of parasitism on the population dynamics of the macadamia nutborer Gymnandrosoma aurantianum (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Helga Blanco-Metzler1*, Allan D. Watt2 & Derek Cosens3 1. Crop Protection Research Centre (CIPROC), University of Costa Rica. San José, Costa Rica; [email protected] 2. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh, Scotland. 3. Zoology Department, Edinburgh University, Scotland. * Correspondence author Received 15-X-2008. Corrected 25-V-2009. Accepted 26-VI-2009. Abstract: Biological control on crop infesting insects represent an useful method in modern agriculture. A search for parasitoids of the macadamia nutborer was carried out during a three year study, and their effect on the popu- lation fluctuation of the borer was determined. An egg parasitoid belonging to the family Trichogrammatidae and four larval parasitoids, Microgastrine I, Microgastrine II, Ascogaster sp. (Hymeoptera: Braconidae) and Pristomerus sp. (Hymeoptera: Ichneumonidae) were recovered. Parasitism percentage by Microgastrine I was 15% in 1991, 16% in 1992 and 4% in 1993; Microgastrine II was not collected in 1991, but accounted for a 4.3% of parasitism in 1992 and 3.7% in 1993; Ascogaster sp. was registered since 1992 with 3% parasitism (29% in 1993). We found an inverse relationship between total parasitism and the mean of damaged nuts. Parasitoids play an important role in the reduction of the G. aurantianum population. Rev. Biol. Trop. 57 (4): 1245-1252. Epub 2009 December 01. Key words: Gymnandrosoma aurantianum (Ecdytolopha torticornis), biological control, parasitoids, macada- mia, Costa Rica. Nut trees of the genus Macadamia spp. (33000 MT), United States (24494 MT), South (Proteaceae) grow naturally in rain forests Africa (11500 MT), Guatemala (9360 MT) and of Australia and New South Wales (Ironside Kenya (5800 MT) (USDA 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • Additions, Deletions and Corrections to An
    Bulletin of the Irish Biogeographical Society No. 36 (2012) ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE IRISH BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS (LEPIDOPTERA) WITH A CONCISE CHECKLIST OF IRISH SPECIES AND ELACHISTA BIATOMELLA (STAINTON, 1848) NEW TO IRELAND K. G. M. Bond1 and J. P. O’Connor2 1Department of Zoology and Animal Ecology, School of BEES, University College Cork, Distillery Fields, North Mall, Cork, Ireland. e-mail: <[email protected]> 2Emeritus Entomologist, National Museum of Ireland, Kildare Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. Abstract Additions, deletions and corrections are made to the Irish checklist of butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera). Elachista biatomella (Stainton, 1848) is added to the Irish list. The total number of confirmed Irish species of Lepidoptera now stands at 1480. Key words: Lepidoptera, additions, deletions, corrections, Irish list, Elachista biatomella Introduction Bond, Nash and O’Connor (2006) provided a checklist of the Irish Lepidoptera. Since its publication, many new discoveries have been made and are reported here. In addition, several deletions have been made. A concise and updated checklist is provided. The following abbreviations are used in the text: BM(NH) – The Natural History Museum, London; NMINH – National Museum of Ireland, Natural History, Dublin. The total number of confirmed Irish species now stands at 1480, an addition of 68 since Bond et al. (2006). Taxonomic arrangement As a result of recent systematic research, it has been necessary to replace the arrangement familiar to British and Irish Lepidopterists by the Fauna Europaea [FE] system used by Karsholt 60 Bulletin of the Irish Biogeographical Society No. 36 (2012) and Razowski, which is widely used in continental Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Archivo Local
    - 1 - UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AGRARIA DE LA SELVA FACULTAD DE AGRONOMÍA ESCUELA PROFESIONAL DE AGRONOMÍA TESIS INFESTACIÓN DEL “MAZORQUERO DEL CACAO” (Carmenta foraseminis (Busck) Eichlin) Y REGISTRO DE SUS ENEMIGOS NATURALES EN EPOCA DE ALTA PRECIPITACIÓN, EN LOS CASERÍOS DE CAMOTE Y POZO RICO, MONZÓN – HUÁNUCO Para optar el título profesional de: INGENIERO AGRÓNOMO Elaborado por DANIEL PIUNDO AGUILAR Tingo María – Perú 2019 - 2 - DEDICATORIA A Dios: Padre, por permitirme llegar a este momento tan especial en mi vida. Por los triunfos y los momentos difíciles que me han enseñado a valorarlo cada día. A mi nueva familia: Mi esposa Nicasia Noreña Valverde y mi hija Alisson Piundo Ferreyra, quienes son el motivo para salir adelante y ser mejor persona cada día. A mis amados padres: Pedro Piundo Medina y Marita Aguilar Cartagena, quienes me han dado todo lo que soy como persona, valores, principios, perseverancia y coraje para conseguir mis objetivos. A mis hermanos: Ardul Babilonia Aguilar, Marlith Babilonia Aguilar, Katherin Babilonia Aguilar, Alcides Piundo Aguilar y Rosalvina Piundo Villanueva, por estar siempre presentes en mi vida, por su amor y consejos. - 3 - AGRADECIMIENTO A la Universidad Nacional Agraria de la Selva, mi Alma Mater y a los docentes de la Facultad de Agronomía quienes contribuyeron con sus conocimientos en mi formación profesional. Al Blgo. M. Sc. José Luis Gil Bacilio, asesor del presente trabajo, por su constante y desinteresada orientación, su invalorable apoyo técnico, metodológico y científico. Al Ing. Oscar Esmael Cabezas Huayllas, Ing. Jaime Josseph Chávez Matías e Ing. Manuel Tito Viera Huiman miembros del jurado de tesis.
    [Show full text]
  • New Pest Response Guidelines False Codling Moth Thaumatotibia Leucotreta
    United States Department of New Pest Response Agriculture Marketing and Regulatory Guidelines Programs Animal and False Codling Moth Plant Health Inspection Service Thaumatotibia leucotreta Cooperating State Departments of Agriculture August 13, 2007 New Pest Response Guidelines False Codling Moth Thaumatotibia leucotreta August 13, 2007 New Pest Response Guidelines: False Codling Moth Thaumatotibia leucotreta was prepared by Jeffrey Stibick, USDA–APHIS–PPQ–Emergency and Domestic Programs and edited by Patricia S. Michalak, USDA–APHIS–PPQ–Manuals Unit. Cite this report as follows: Stibick, J. 2006. New Pest Response Guidelines: False Codling Moth Thaumatotibia leucotreta. USDA–APHIS–PPQ–Emergency and Domestic Programs, Riverdale, Maryland [http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ import_export/plants/ppq_manuals.shtml]. R. L. Dunkle May 3, 2007 Richard Dunkle, Deputy Administrator Date USDA–APHIS–PPQ Emergency and Domestic Programs Emergency Planning Joel Floyd, Team Leader 4700 River Road Unit 137 Riverdale, Maryland 20737 Telephone: 310/734-4396 [email protected] 1 Credits False Codling Moth Contributors Stephanie Bloem, U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)–Center for Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST), Raleigh, North Carolina Jim E. Carpenter, USDA–Agricultural Research Service (ARS)–Crop Protection and Management Research, Tifton, Georgia Susan Ellis, USDA–APHIS–Plant Protection and Quarantine–Office of the Deputy Administrator, Riverdale, Maryland Todd Gilligan, Ohio State University, Museum of Biodiversity, Columbus, Ohio Jeffrey N. L. Stibick, USDA–APHIS–PPQ–Emergency and Domestic Programs, Riverdale, Maryland Shaharra J. Usnick, USDA–APHIS–PPQ–Plant Health Programs, Riverdale, Maryland Robert C. Venette, USDA–Forest Service, St. Paul, Minnesota Industry, State Regulatory Officers, Universities, and Governmental Agencies as credited in: September 1983.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Texas Lepidoptera Knudson & Bordelon, Jan 2018 Texas Lepidoptera Survey
    1 Checklist of Texas Lepidoptera Knudson & Bordelon, Jan 2018 Texas Lepidoptera Survey ERIOCRANIOIDEA TISCHERIOIDEA ERIOCRANIIDAE TISCHERIIDAE Dyseriocrania griseocapitella (Wlsm.) Eriocraniella mediabulla Davis Coptotriche citripennella (Clem.) Eriocraniella platyptera Davis Coptotriche concolor (Zell.) Coptotriche purinosella (Cham.) Coptotriche clemensella (Cham). Coptotriche sulphurea (F&B) NEPTICULOIDEA Coptotriche zelleriella (Clem.) Tischeria quercitella Clem. NEPTICULIDAE Coptotriche malifoliella (Clem.) Coptotriche crataegifoliae (Braun) Ectoedemia platanella (Clem.) Coptotriche roseticola (F&B) Ectoedemia rubifoliella (Clem.) Coptotriche aenea (F&B) Ectoedemia ulmella (Braun) Asterotriche solidaginifoliella (Clem.) Ectoedemia obrutella (Zell.) Asterotriche heliopsisella (Cham.) Ectoedemia grandisella (Cham.) Asterotriche ambrosiaeella (Cham.) Nepticula macrocarpae Free. Asterotriche helianthi (F&B) Stigmella scintillans (Braun) Asterotriche heteroterae (F&B) Stigmella rhoifoliella (Braun) Asterotriche longeciliata (F&B) Stigmella rhamnicola (Braun) Asterotriche omissa (Braun) Stigmella villosella (Clem.) Asterotriche pulvella (Cham.) Stigmella apicialbella (Cham.) Stigmella populetorum (F&B) Stigmella saginella (Clem.) INCURVARIOIDEA Stigmella nigriverticella (Cham.) Stigmella flavipedella (Braun) PRODOXIDAE Stigmella ostryaefoliella (Clem.) Stigmella myricafoliella (Busck) Tegeticula yuccasella (Riley) Stigmella juglandifoliella (Clem.) Tegeticula baccatella Pellmyr Stigmella unifasciella (Cham.) Tegeticula carnerosanella Pellmyr
    [Show full text]